Comments on: Prosthetic device restores and improves impaired decision-making ability

By: Glen Lincoln

Glen Lincoln — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:16:15 +0000

My understanding of the article is that this device is successful in creating a clearer, cleaner process of the subject’s own mind, perhaps by filtering out “noise”. (my interpretation). The researchers record and playback the subject’s OWN, best-of, result. I imagine we could do the same, say, in archery, record and store the mind state of bullseyes, then subsequently replay those more ideal mind states as the archer is performing. It’s not able to swap out your own impulses. But let’s just say we could upload new, external mind software; we do this already when we read a book or see a play, but we still have our wits intact, and we don’t act on suggestions or even orders that are criminal. Well, sometimes we do, but we still know right and wrong. Nobody makes us or brainwashes us without our consent.

By: Glen Lincoln

Glen Lincoln — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 03:54:01 +0000

Whenever I read, “One day it will be possible in people, the scientists say,” in a science article (paragraph 3 in this one) what it actually means is not only is this merely possible, it is inevitable, and likely will be ordinary within an astonishingly short period of time.

By: David Ullery

David Ullery — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:10:47 +0000

Yet another cyborg machine part. We will merge with our machines.

By: GAUSS

GAUSS — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:43:50 +0000

“At once, I thought about internal Pavlovian conditioning or behavioral induction tampering.”

I think of those things too, but when encountering any implant technology, especially those focused on the brain. It’s a double-edged sword, to be sure.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:21:28 +0000

Cool tech!!

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:11:28 +0000

I’d say the movie The Manchurian Candidate, or more of the modern remake, than A Clockwork Orange, which was more about depravity in society, and the forces that foster it. The potential for abuse is extremely high. A toltarian state like North Korea could mandate implants at birth, and down load commands as they deem fit. Like all double edge swords, the potential for good is tremendous. This and other brain implants could alter diseased and healthy brains in radical ways. We talk of mental upgrades and transhumanist desires to go beyond what the human brain is capable of. This is clearly a step in that direction. The big question is morals and ethics. Who gets to decide those issues. It’s a sticky wicket. The forces that drive the behaviors of the characters in A Clock Work Orange have been around long before humans evolved. Check out Jane Goodals work with chimps in the wild. Although it escapes most people, as to why these behaviors evolved, they are conserved for very important reasons. They increase evolutionary pressures. They accelerate social development. Those same forces are still at work today and are mirrored in our political thought. Hopefully we will learn our lessons. As it stands now we haven’t changed much from the days we swung from tree branches. Brutes, tyrants, thugs, you name it. They still abound. Very high potential for misuse and abuse.

By: melajara

melajara — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:37:52 +0000

I’m surprised this article didn’t trigger any comment yet.

I find it very troubling. At once, I thought about internal Pavlovian conditioning or behavioral induction tampering.

This could be used as a more or less subtle weapon agaisnt the still unhacked albeit illusory “free will” of any individual (welcome Clockwork Orange and neo-neuromarketing) .

IMHO, much to discuss here for philosophers or ethicists.

By: asiwel

asiwel — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:35:17 +0000

Improve/restore “decision-making ability” in a task/context situation? How do the researchers know that “playing back” the recording did not simply “force” the subjects to make the same – presumably “correct” – decision? I thinking of decision-making ability as something that can go one way or another based on an awareness and analysis of “clues” guided by attitudes (predispositions to act) defined in terms of values. The “best” decision is not always the objectively “correct” one. (rather it can be, e.g., the best I can do with what I’ve got in the particular situation at hand.) Does the subject experiencing the playback have any slack here for volition?